AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Supehia, J
The writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.19185 and 20486 of 2022 have been filed seeking the following prayer:-
“25(B) Be pleased to allow the present petition by issuing the writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ by quashing and setting aside the termination order against the petitioner dated dtd 1.11.2011 (Annexure-A) in the interest of justice.”
Thus, the prayer would suggest that the petitioners are seeking to challenge the termination order dated 01.11.2011, after a period of more than 11 years.
The writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.19187, 20157 of 2022 have been filed seeking the following prayer:-
“25(B) Be pleased to allow the present petition by issuing the writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ by quashing and setting aside the termination order against the petitioner dated dtd 29.04.2011 (Annexure-A) in the interest of justice.”
Thus, the prayer would suggest that the petitioners are seeking to challenge the termination order dated 29.04.2011 after a period of more than 11 years.
By the order dated 01.11.2011, the petitioners, who were serving as Vidhya Sahayaks were terminated for the reason that their certificates and testimonials were in doubt. Thereafter, the petitioners challenged the orders before this Court in Special Civil Application No.6936 of 2011, Special Civil Application No.6933 of 2011. By the common order dated 30.07.2011, the writ petitions were disposed of with a certain directions issued to the Committee, which was formed by the State Government. It was directed by this Court to supply all relevant materials and inquiry report to the petitioners and the State Authority was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, show cause notices dated 08.09.2011 were issued to the petitioners by the District Primary Education Officer, Vadodara asking them to remain present on 27.09.2011 before the Committee with necessary documents. Thereafter, by the impugned orders dated 01.11.2011 and 29.04.2011 passed by the District Primary Education Officer, Vadodara cancelling the appointment of the petitioners as Vidhya Sahayak and accordingly, removing them from service. The removal orders have been passed in view of the alleged fake certificate produced by the petitioners of Gujarat State Kabbadi Association.
3.1. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner of captioned Special Civil Application No.19185 of 2022 filed Special Civil Application No.2362 of 2014, the petitioner of captioned Special Civil Application No.19187 of 2022 filed Special Civil Application No.2366 of 2014, the petitioner of captioned Special Civil Application No.20157 of 2022 filed Special Civil Application No.2364 of 2014 and the petitioner of captioned Special Civil Application No.20486 of 2022 filed Special Civil Application No.2369 of 2014, which were rejected by the orders dated 15.11.2017.
3.2. It appears that, no Letters Patent Appeal was filed in Special Civil Application No.2362 of 2014. However, other petitioners filed Letters Patent Appeal Nos.680, 679 and 679 of 2019, respectively along with delay condonation applications, against the said judgment and order. The Division Bench rejected the delay condonation application by the order dated 18.03.2019 and hence, the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed on the ground of delay. All the aforesaid orders have become final and it was not carried out further. All the petitioners have accepted those orders.
3.3. Thereafter, it appears that another set of group of petitions, wherein the persons similarly situated to the present petitioners, who had approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.8270 of 2014 and allied matters were allowed by the judgment dated 13.12.2018 and the impugned notice dated 01.07.2013 and the order dated 23.09.2014 terminating the services of those petitioners were set aside. Similarly, in another set of employees, who had filed the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.897 of 2013, this Court by the judgment dated 22.10.2019 has quashed and set aside the termination order in view of the judgment dated 17.06.2019 passed by the Division Bench. It is noticed from these orders, all the petitioners, who approached this Court, were continued by the interim orders passed by this Court. The petitioners taking care from the aforesaid judgments and orders have now again challenged the termination orders dated 29.04.2011 and 01.11.2011.
Learned advocate Mr.Prashant Mankad appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the other petitioners, who were terminated on the same ground, had approached this Court, their termination having been set aside and hence, the present petitioners are also entitled to the same benefits. Thus, the impugned orders dated 01.11.2011, 29.04.2021 may be set aside.
Learned AGP Mr.Ronak Raval has submitted that having accepted the orders passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting their writ petitions and also the Division Bench rejecting the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the petitioners, the petitioners now cannot, after so many years seek the same benefit, which has been conferred to other petitioners in another group of petitions. It is submitted that the present writ petitions are hopelessly time barred and barred by the principles of res judicata.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
The aforenoted facts are not in dispute. The petitioners had earlier challenged the very same orders before this Court by filing the aforenoted writ petitions, which were rejected by the common judgment and order dated 15.11.2017. The Letters Patent Appeals filed against the aforesaid judgment and order were also not entertained. Thus, the orders of this Court have become final and cannot be subsequently diluted in view of the orders passed in other group of petitions. Having accepted such orders, the writ petitioners cannot challenge their termination order only because there were some orders passed in favour of other similarly situated employees. Any orders passed in favour of the petitioners will run contrary to the judgment and order which has become final. The writ petitions are barred by principle of res judicata. The entire issue in case of the termination of the petitioners is litigated and finally decided on merits; and hence, the same cannot be reopened. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have been continued by any interim orders. Their termination had already become final when they had filed the first writ petitions, which are subsequently rejected.
Hence, the present writ petitions fails and summarily rejected.